26 Mar 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf it were for Sovereign God, how do you explain them? Supposing the existence of a god doesn't in any way make large numbers easier to explain. Only a good education does.
[b]Question 2: Were it not for Sovereign God, how in the wide world could the "googolplexian"
and/or the symbol for infinity: ∞
ever possibly be explained
? or ¿[/b]
26 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterYes, I am sure it is a reasonable interpretation. Not the only one of course.
I wasn't aware of that. I take it you are sure of that?
Thanks.
Its similar to the phrase "be–all and end–all" which is more about importance than the end mentioned in the phrase.
An interesting related question is why theists believe that infinite time exists in the first place. I rather doubt the Bible explicitly says so, and many theists try to use the complications of infinity to try and argue that the universe must have a creator (flawed arguments, but surely they should still apply them to their own beliefs?).
Putting infinite time aside for the moment, suppose that heaven is actually only available for a few billion years and then God either terminates everyone or moves them to some other type of existence. Would it have said so in the Bible? Is there anything to indicate that is not the case? It seems to me that theist make rather a lot of assumptions about heaven from very little information and then get very assertive about it as if they actually have good reasons for their beliefs.
26 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadStill reading your other post. However, in scripture the phase is used vicariously by John interpreting the spiritual words of Jesus thus:
I see dictionaries also interpret 'Alpha and Omega' as 'the most important part' similar to the meaning of 'be-all and end-all'.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alpha+and+omega
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
It seems that the writer wants to impart a completeness and importance, but also a start and a finish. Eternity of course, would have no start and no finish. Therefore Jesus, as the son, cannot be eternal but is the agent of creation and the agent of its finality. Also the first of creation and the last. Elsewhere Jesus is described as being the "firstborn of creation" and here he (the son) is also the end. The finish.
26 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've seen you post about this before and it's a fair question. How can anything exist without time. Time (as I understand it) is created/generated from the dynamic of mass pressing through the fabric space. Space-time.
Yes, I am sure it is a reasonable interpretation. Not the only one of course.
Its similar to the phrase "be–all and end–all" which is more about importance than the end mentioned in the phrase.
An interesting related question is why theists believe that infinite time exists in the first place. I rather doubt the Bible explicitly says so, and many thei ...[text shortened]... on and then get very assertive about it as if they actually have good reasons for their beliefs.
"Eternity" is a poetic adjective in my opinion. It speaks of a situation where time is not reliant on mass nor its integration with the fabric of space.
I readily admit I have absolutely no idea how that would work, but I agree with you that the concept of eternal time or the concept of no time within the current cosmos is nonsensical.
26 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterAlthough that too is an interesting topic, it wasn't what I was on about. What I am saying is that it seems theists often get a bit too presumptive about the nature of heaven. The thread title suggests some people will live for 'eternity'. But what is that belief based on?
I've seen you post about this before and it's a fair question. How can anything exist without time. Time (as I understand it) is created/generated from the dynamic of mass pressing through the fabric space. Space-time.
"Eternity" is a poetic adjective in my opinion. It speaks of a situation where time is not reliant on mass nor its integration with t ...[text shortened]... the concept of eternal time or the concept of no time within the current cosmos is nonsensical.
26 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd it seems to me that we cannot really know for sure what the writer wanted to impart. I certainly don't agree that your interpretation is the only possible one and you seem a bit too sure of yourself. I have seen a number of other interpretations and I don't see any reason for taking yours over the others. In addition I believe Jewish tradition actually encourages multiple interpretations and it is entirely possible the writer wanted multiple interpretations.
It seems that the writer wants to impart a completeness and importance, but also a start and a finish.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI pick the instant death every time.
Indeed.
Of course my argument is to turn the whole thing on its head.
Take a ludicrously long period of time... Say 3^^^^3 years [^ standing in for "up-arrow"]
and then try to imagine ANY POSSIBLE activity that anything resembling a human
could do for that long that WOULDN'T drive you insane and end up being torture.
I can see no possible exi ...[text shortened]... ven' and 'instant death' as Suzianne likes to argue for...
I pick the instant death every time.
When does the next high speed bus pass by your house?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Mar 16
6 edits
Beyond huge numbers:
"Graham's Number"
" TREE(3) "
" Loader's Number " (520 characters needed to express as a formula)
"Rayos Number" ( Inventor was a philosopher, not a mathematician )
I enjoyed a series of lectures one week on very VERY large numbers with useful purposes.
Ridiculously large numbers which cannot be imagined -
What is Graham's Number ?
What is the Largest Number ?
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)"According to Thomas Aquinas, it is impossible for two distinct causes to each be the immediate cause of one and the same thing. An angel is a good example of such a cause. Thus two angels cannot occupy the same space.[2] This can be seen as an early statement of the Pauli exclusion principle. (The Pauli exclusion principle is a pillar of modern physics. It was first stated in the twentieth century, by Pauli.)
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?" Thread 158620 (30 Mar '14 23:48)
"Here are the largest numbers I could find as a layman's point of reference:
Googol: A large number. A "1" followed by one hundred zeros.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000, ...[text shortened]... te quantitative/qualitative aspect of an eternity with or separated from God?"
____________________
However, this does not place any upper bound on the density of angels in a small area, because the size r of angels remains undefined and could possibly be arbitrarily small. There have also been theological criticisms of any assumption of angels as complete causes."
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm
___________________
Question 3: In your opinion, is it within the realm of remote possibility that the finite maximum number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could be expressed mathematically by "the Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThomas Aquinas was pre-quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have a definite position and can occupy the same region of space as each other. The Pauli exclusion principle is a bit more complicated. To answer you question we would need to know what quantum numbers angels have and whether or not they are made up of multiple quantum particles. It must also be noted that not all quantum particles are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. If photons are angels in disguise then I believe there is no limit to how many could dance on the head of a pin.
Question 3: In your opinion, is it within the realm of remote possibility that the finite maximum number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could be expressed mathematically by "the Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?
Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe question is not well-defined until "angels" are.
[b]Question 3: In your opinion, is it within the realm of remote possibility that the finite maximum number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could be expressed mathematically by "the Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?[/b]
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe definitions of the concept of infinity or some finite number do not invoke gods - mathematics is not "explained" a posteriori but derived from axioms.
[b]Question 2: Were it not for Sovereign God, how in the wide world could the "googolplexian"
and/or the symbol for infinity: ∞
ever possibly be explained
? or ¿[/b]